You may have noticed, things are currently on hold here. In the meantime, I am redirecting you to a guest post I authored, entitled "Don't Miss the Boat!" The (short) article was published recently on The Two Cities blog, which many of you will find a profitable resource on theology, biblical studies, culture, etc. The atmosphere is sufficiently casual to allow for friendly discussion of topics—some quite common, others even controversial—but written by very capable and credentialed, young academics. I encourage you to look around.
Please feel free to share your comments regarding my article (here or there), but do note the following points to avoid some common misconceptions.
1) Despite the subtitle of the article (which was added by the editors), my aim was not to discuss the historicity of Noah's ark. Rather, I am focused on whether the obsession by some over this historical-critical question has unnecessarily divided the church and caused many to miss our real vocation.
2) The points I make do not commit to any particular stance on the historicity of Noah's ark. I do note in passing that there is no geological evidence for a recent global flood, but it is possible to agree with my thesis/discussion while disagreeing about the geological evidence. Obviously, that scientific question is more involved than 800 words can offer. Hence, this blog (among others) is filled with long, detailed discussions on the geological evidence to support my claim.
3) In saying that "the historical question is not primarily A, but B", I am not proposing a simple dichotomy between A and B (hence my use of the term 'primarily'). I understand that the question of the historicity of Gen. 6–9 is still valid and cannot necessarily be divorced from, say, the theological application of this story to redemptive history. My main point is that we should at least agree on how/whether the story speaks to our vocation today before marginalizing ourselves (perhaps unnecessarily) from most of modern society.
Enjoy! Hopefully I will be able to continue my thoughts here in the next week or so.
Please feel free to share your comments regarding my article (here or there), but do note the following points to avoid some common misconceptions.
1) Despite the subtitle of the article (which was added by the editors), my aim was not to discuss the historicity of Noah's ark. Rather, I am focused on whether the obsession by some over this historical-critical question has unnecessarily divided the church and caused many to miss our real vocation.
2) The points I make do not commit to any particular stance on the historicity of Noah's ark. I do note in passing that there is no geological evidence for a recent global flood, but it is possible to agree with my thesis/discussion while disagreeing about the geological evidence. Obviously, that scientific question is more involved than 800 words can offer. Hence, this blog (among others) is filled with long, detailed discussions on the geological evidence to support my claim.
3) In saying that "the historical question is not primarily A, but B", I am not proposing a simple dichotomy between A and B (hence my use of the term 'primarily'). I understand that the question of the historicity of Gen. 6–9 is still valid and cannot necessarily be divorced from, say, the theological application of this story to redemptive history. My main point is that we should at least agree on how/whether the story speaks to our vocation today before marginalizing ourselves (perhaps unnecessarily) from most of modern society.
Enjoy! Hopefully I will be able to continue my thoughts here in the next week or so.
No comments:
Post a Comment